Could Regal "Pomp" save Rome? (King Augustus I)

Would a King Augustus I be better for Rome long term?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 7 26.9%
  • No

    Votes: 16 61.5%

  • Total voters
    26
Tullia-drives-her-chariot.jpg


It seems to me the spectre of the Roman republican ideal after the ascension of the Principate of Octavian caused many problems politically in so far as determining proper transfers of power after either the Principe or Emperor died.

Especially since the might makes right precedent established by Caesar made it perpetually difficult for any ruler, whether chosen successor or outright usper, to maintain legitimacy in face of the constant waxing and waning power of the Imperial court.

Therefore, if we take a potential PoD of say Octavian declaring himself King Augustus instead of "First Citizen" (consequences be damned) after wrapping up his war with Mark Anthony, converting the Senate into a kingly-court of advisors and instituting some semblance of kingly-succession rights..(a Roman version of Primogenture?)

Would such an arrangement have been better off for the spralling empire in the long run?
 
Last edited:
Octavian would have been assassinated if he tried that, so the slow transfer to becoming a king would have to be a gradual one. Really, that's what already happened since titles like "Emperor", "Augustus", and "Caesar" essentially became the same as king, only with much more prestige.

I'm not sure how effective it would be to keeping Rome more stable. Many Emperors died childless, or with incompetent and/or sadistic sons. There would always be problems between brothers, between sons and uncles, between cousins and different branches of the family, and of course with one family usurping the other and possibly forging their own pedigree.
 
Hellenistic kingship features were introduced by Julio-Claudians (and not only Caligula or Nero) and some lasted way beyond the first century. I think you're underestimating the strong dynastical take of the Roman principate, and how deeply it was rooted in a common stoician support of monarchical idea, which is the one of a virtuous man above parties and protector of the common good.

This was a relatively popular idea, both among the ROman people stricto sensu, and both within the military (where, admittedly, the idea of a dynastically transmitted virtus was widespread).

That's one of the superficial contradiction of the principate, where king was seen as foreign, "oriental" and more or less despotic; but monarchy was seen as philosophically sound and popular.
 
Octavian would have been assassinated if he tried that, so the slow transfer to becoming a king would have to be a gradual one. Really, that's what already happened since titles like "Emperor", "Augustus", and "Caesar" essentially became the same as king, only with much more prestige.

I'm not sure how effective it would be to keeping Rome more stable. Many Emperors died childless, or with incompetent and/or sadistic sons. There would always be problems between brothers, between sons and uncles, between cousins and different branches of the family, and of course with one family usurping the other and possibly forging their own pedigree.
With the example of Caesar so recent,I don't think Augustus would be so easily assassinated if he decides to be king.
 
Truth be told the question was slightly inspired by this little speech in the film Unforgiven


How true it is let alone how true it could be for Rome who knows?
 
Top